The present invention relates to security systems, and more particularly relates to a centralized security and alarm system, and related method, which automatically provides video or still images of detected alarm events occurring within monitored alarm zones in a protected building, perimeter or premises, for example, a home or business, to a designated end-user cell phone to enable the end-user to view the captured alarm event activity and verify whether the alarm event is a true or false alarm event. The automatic communication and end-user response preferably occur before an alarm notification is communicated to a security and alarm system central monitoring station.
Security and personal safety are major concerns for individuals, and their loved ones. Most homeowners wish to protect their valuables and maintain safe havens for themselves and their family members. To that end, various conventional central security and alarm systems are known that provide various security system monitoring and surveillance features and options to protect the homes, homeowners, and family members and visitors. For example, centralized security and alarm systems are known to include video monitoring for one or more entry and exit points at the home or business location.
Conventional central security and alarm systems operate as follows. An alarm event detection device protecting an alarm zone, e.g., a front door, may detect an alarm event, i.e., an unauthorized opening of the door. The detection is communicated by the detection device to a local central home panel, or server. The central panel, in response to receipt of detection notification, and typically after some fixed alarm-entry delay (where the alarm is not cancelled), transmits an alarm notification (signal) to the central monitoring station. The alarm notification indicates to the central monitoring station that a true alarm event occurred, e.g., that there has been a detected unauthorized entry at an alarm zone at the protected premises. The central station may then alert the local authorities and/or third party security companies, who then take appropriate action with respect to the detected unauthorized entry.
Alarm event detection devices include but are not limited to window detectors, door detectors, motion sensors, both digital and analog (CCTV) image or acquisition devices and cameras. Conventional alarm event detection devices, however, are known to be limited in ability to distinguish or verify that an alarm event is a false alarm event before raising a true alarm event notification. For that matter, centralized security and alarm systems frequently interpret alarm events that are false alarm events as true alarm events. One example of this might occur where an alarm event detection device detects an alarm event at a protected premises as an intrusion where the alarm event was a family member triggering an intrusion detection device, and the central panel or central monitoring station raises a false alarm. Other false alarm triggering events might include pets or unexpected visitors breaching a protected entry or exit zone, falling branches detected as intrusions, loud noises generated by car crashes, windows breaking, and many other innocent and inadvertent occurrences. The problem is that when an alarm state is communicated to the central monitoring station, whether false or true, action must be taken.
Conventional central security and alarm systems may include attempting to contact a homeowner at the secured premises in response to a reported detected alarm event. A problem with such operation, however, occurs where the contact person or homeowner is not available, or not available within the moments just after the alarm event is detected and before an alarm is raised. In such a case, the homeowner cannot verify or communicate to the central station that the detected alarm event was a false alarm event (so that no action need be taken). For that matter, common power failures and other power cutoffs may prevent traditional central security monitoring and alarm systems from contacting the designated contact person in the event of a reported detected alarm event or security breach.
The high false alarm rates associated with conventional central security and alarm systems, and alarm event reporting pose a serious problem in communities where homes and business are protected with such conventional systems. False alarms reported from conventionally protected homes and businesses deplete police resources and undermine the credibility of the security and alarm systems that appear to repeatedly malfunction. In response to the staggering number of false alarms (over 90% in some areas), local police departments and other governmental entities may fine homeowners whose alarm systems repeatedly produce false alarms in an attempt to reduce the false alarm reporting rates. Some US communities have gone as far as passing laws that prevent the police from responding to an alarm activated by a central “home” security and alarm system. As a result, central security and alarm system owners are sometimes forced to employ expensive third party security companies to respond to reported alarm conditions and events.
Certain central security and alarm systems are known to provide means for minimizing or reducing the numerous false alarms reported. One example is a central security and alarm system that allows the system's central monitoring station to respond to reported (detected) alarm events with attempts to verify whether the event is a true or false alarm event. That is, such systems and operations are responsive in that in response to a reported detected alarm event, central station security personnel notified attempt place a confirmation call to the homeowner in an attempt to verify the alarm event before dispatching police or other security personnel to investigate. Such communications may be helpful when the owner is at home, allowing him/her to verify, if possible, whether the alarm event triggering the notification was inadvertent or accidental (false), or true alarm event detection. But as mentioned above, if the homeowner is not present verification cannot occur.
For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,400,265 to Saylor, et al. (“the '265 patent”), discloses a security system and method that provides for end-users to personalize alert notifications for various security devices including access to a web interface (e.g., a personal web page), where an end-user may monitor current security status and other information. Historical data (aggregate data from security systems), and data from other sources may be available at such a website for generating reports based on the aggregate data, and/or other sources of data. Users may register security devices and/or systems with a central security monitoring station which then accesses the user's personal preferences, profile information and/or other information used to execute alarm event notifications, investigations, reporting, etc.
Certain central security and alarm systems include the use of image acquisition devices, e.g., network cameras, for surveillance or monitoring alarm zones that are particularly susceptible to breach. Acquisition devices or network cameras may continuously monitor and transmit acquired video and still images from a protected alarm zone to a central monitoring station. In other known systems the image acquisition devices acquire alarm zone images only upon alarm event detection. Central monitoring stations, or central stations are known to use the acquired video or image information for various forms of video alarm verification.
For example, if a trip wire (alarm event detection device) in a video-monitored alarm zone is triggered, the trip wire device sends an alarm event detection signal to the local central panel, and/or directly to a network camera monitoring the alarm zone to trigger the camera to acquire video of the alarm event as it occurs. The camera acquires and transmits images of the alarm event to the central home panel. With or without a time delay, or alarm entry delay, the central panel sends alarm notification to the central monitoring station. In response, security personnel at the central station may use the video in an attempt to remotely verify whether an actual intrusion, or some other true alarm event has occurred. To do so, the image information may be sent by the central station security personnel to the end-user via the Internet, telephone, etc.
However, because notification of the alarm condition to the central station occurs prior to video being sent to the user, or to the user's website for verification, the operation is susceptible to high false alarm reporting, and the associated complications discussed above. Moreover, because such central security monitoring and alarm systems are not known to map alarm zones with respective video cameras, it is difficult for security personnel to identify and review the “right” video clip, or still shot, of the captured alarm event before alarm entry delays time-out, particular in a zone or premises utilizing multiple cameras. That is, by the time the correct video segment is found and viewed to verify a reported alarm event, alarm notification has typically already occurred. Moreover, even where prompt video analysis is available by central security monitoring personnel, the availability may still not guarantee that the central station personnel can distinguish friends from foe, i.e., identify that the event viewed is not a true alarm event. The security monitoring persons reviewing video clips of alarm events cannot discern identities but only whether the alarm event was human triggered, and therefore cannot “know” whether an “intruder” is the homeowner, a child, a child's nanny, a janitor or other service provided, etc.
Accordingly, and because home entry/exit security breaches reported represent 75% of all false alarms, a more efficient and effective method and system for verifying alarm events before formal alarm notification takes place would be welcomed in the security world, particularly if effective in reducing percentages of false alarms reported.